Social ∋●∈ The Sith Academy ∋●∈ Welcome all new fans of the Dark Side!

It's really strange to have someone cite "the rules of war" when we've had the rules changed on us just recently by Al Queda and ISIS... when we changed the rules on everyone else in the 1700s. There are no "rules of war," really. If there were we would still be fighting in lines and in bright uniforms like this:

What Sun Tsu is saying, as I read it, is that it is advisable to take these things because of scarcity. And scarcity hasn't ever changed.

 

try telling that to someone that's never seen a day of combat or lack in their lives and thinks taking anything that's not actually yours and isn't paid for is flat wrong no matter the circumstances.

 

Part III: Attack by Strategem. This part is where I drew the quote that prompted me to reread it. Yet, to me, this section is characterized by:
"Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."

Thoughts?

Sent via Tapatalk this was.

 

What are we talking about? (I know what we are talking about.... But there are some variables we need to has out here I think to explore this truly... Circumstance? Time era? Ect?

I would put forth something briefly in regards to this to try and simplify as well...

Regarding Guerrilla warfare and foraging?

One important thing to also consider I think is that you can never assume that ideal conditions will be present and have to plan and be prepared for a number of scenarios...

And with that being said the best laid plans are laid to waste... when the bullets start flying or the swords start clanging....

I look forward to your clarification before I start to attempt to delve into this more....

 

While I can understand your viewpoint.... what are we talking about again? War... battle.. a fight?

We are going to need to clearly distinguish certain aspects of it in regards to this topic...

Ultimately what is the objective of a fight? To win simply. There is nothing else. You do not go into battle thinking anything else...

Atrocities and war crimes aside, as this puts this into a whole different context.

You are tasked with accomplishing your objective by any means necessary. The utter destruction and defeat of your enemy needs to be your entire focus from the start. If it is not you risk defeat. A comprehensive assault plan... which entails equipment, supplies chains, food and water, and enemy personnel... power and fuel supplies, communications .... there are countless others...

ALL if them are fair game... If I am given a choice to obliterate my enemies food and water supply and cripple their communications grid... before committing and assault on their actual personnel... then it will be done. Think about the potential outcome of such... you may very well have no need to further engage against the forces... yes they may stat starving and conditions for them worsen. But they will not be fighting you... hence limiting the casualties on both sides.

To limit yourself in anyway can eventually be used against you.

During the American Civil War General Sherman's brutal burning of Atlanta and his march to the coast were seen as brutal tactics, but his actions along with the Northern victory at Gettysburg and Grant's victory in Vicksburg are probably the 3 most decisiveness events that crippled the Southern Armies, in a war many though was going to last forever.

If you have a chance to decimate a food supply that an army is going to be using for itself, and by doing so you limit the fighting capabilities of said force. You would be mistaken to not take such an opportunity. The same as destroying roads, bridges, and railroads to cripple movement. Destroying airfields, and communications in modern times would severely hamper mobility of any modern army.





totally may have just gone off topic... sorry lol

 

not off topic to me at all dragonsith13

i think what we were talking about was more like war, and the ways of weakening ones enemy, not just a singular battle because singular battles are pretty much isolated entities when you think about them in that context and foraging wouldn't really be much of a thing. war makes those battles connected, and makes what you do between them possibly more important than the battles themselves as you can win a war without actually having any battles.

what you're talking about is ideal circumstances to fight a war in (or more specifically a total war, not the kinds of wars we have nowadays in most of the developed world), and i personally agree with your opinion on it, war isn't fought in those circumstances in the real world. generals aren't the ones deciding on the desired outcomes, or even the best ways of achieving those ultimately anymore, that's politicians, and politicians won't and can't allow certain things to be done even if it results in shortening the war. for instance, chemical weapons may be extremely effective, but they're pretty much outlawed and unavailable for use in any instance.

now, if you look at situations like those in africa... pretty much exactly what you're saying does happen, and when the details of that sort of thing come out they're pretty much universally condemned. war isn't about winning anymore, it's about forcing the other person do acquiesce with the least amount of collateral damage which hamstrings what an army can actually do.

there's also another aspect to consider, what do you actually do with soldiers that you've asked to commit what in modern times are considered atrocities? how do you reintegrate people like that into society when you no longer have need of them? now this one is probably actually off-topic, but i personally find it to be intrinsically linked, because if you're asking people to do things that are psycho or sociopathic then you're at risk of turning into that... and lord knows we don't need more people with tendencies like that in the slightest.

 

I think it depends on what one considers "fighting".

 

Unless for sport... I would consider fighting a very real and dangerous endeavor. One that has only one eventual goal and desired outcome. Not only victory over your enemy, but the preservation of your life and their defeat and destruction.

 

Sport is a different story. The fighting we're talking about here, IMO, is wartime fighting. In sport, scarcity is regulated and controlled. In wartime, it's not.

 

My point exactly. Thus war-time I feel is a very black and white issue.

 

On the contrary, I think wartime is where the gray area comes in. Sport is black/white because of the referees and rules. I'm in battle and I find I'm low on ammunition in my rifle and no Quartermaster nearby, if I see a dead enemy soldier, I'm going to grab his rifle, no question. Gray area.

 

I know I'm not part of the book club but I wanted to comment.

I think there are lots of gray areas in war. Despite the us against them theme of all wars (black and white), I think the physical confusion of an actual battlefield is what creates the gray area. I can't imagine very much is clear in the heat of battle.

 

I understand your point and agree! However I think we are talking about two different things. Self preservation in a combat situation is very black and white, it is kill or be killed. Survive or not... I think what you are eluding to are the gray areas about how one accomplishes this and the ethical and moral obligations and or implications in doing so... perhaps that is the root of what this whole discussion was? I did come in mid way in the discussion ...

 

That is the root. Sun Tsu was saying how it was important to forage the enemies stores in wartime. I had noted that that was frowned upon in modern warfare.

 

Don't look at me, I'm an acolyte now!

 

that technically is an apprentice still... both neophye and acolyte are.

 

If a Dark Lord of the Sith asks me a Sith Lord to scrub the floor.... I scrub the floor... only the emperor or lord of the Sith answers to no one...

I might poison their drink later... but that is another tale...

 

Dang, might as well get scrubbing.

*starts scrubbing the bathroom and whistles merrily*

 

I shall also be a Dark Lady one of these days.

 

Good. Ambition is the way of the Sith after all.

 

Togrutan_Jedi Captain Owen Get in here and clean up for your Dawn Herald!

FYI, you guys should make it a habit to stop by the Academy every now and then. Added participation could help you... just saying.

 

Gotta love a good Mel reference